Bible “Contradictions” Rebutted, #4

Contradiction claim #22,  Who was the mother of Abijah

2 Chron. 11:20:  Maachah the daughter of Absalom 

2 Chron 13:2:  Michaiah the daughter of Uriel

There is a difficulty here in that Tamar was Absalom’s only daughter.  A possibility is that the Hebrew word here translated as “daughter” can also mean “grand-daughter”.    Considering the time involved, she most likely is Absalom’s grand-daughter.

Contradiction claim #23, Who was Josiah's successor?

2 Chron. 36:1:  Jehoahaz

Jer. 22:11:  Shallum

Both these names refer to the same person.  Jehoahaz is a personal name, while Shallum means “replacer.”

Contradiction claim #24, The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

This is from “When Critics Ask”:  

First, it is possible that each of these is a copyist error. One of the most problematic areas of transcription for the Jewish scribe was copying numbers. It is certainly conceivable that out of these rather large lists of names and numbers there would be a number of copyist errors (see Appendix 2).

Second, it is also possible that Ezra and Nehemiah compiled their lists at different times. Ezra may have compiled a list of those who left Babylon with Zerubbabel, while Nehemiah compiled his list of those who actually made it to Jerusalem. In some cases, people who left Babylon with the intention of going back to rebuild Jerusalem may have turned back or died along the way. In other cases, a family may have enlisted recruits to bolster their numbers. Perhaps family members in other lands got word of the migration and rendezvoused with their relatives along the way from Babylon to Jerusalem.

Contradiction claim #25, How is the Earth supported?

Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.

The point of Job is that the earth is not supported.  He says it hangs “upon nothing.”  Laying “the foundations” is a figure of speech that means when he created the earth.

Contradiction claim #26, Heaven is supported also.

Job 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

Figure of speech, as anyone should so understand.

Contradiction claim #27, The hydrological cycle.

Eccl. 1:7  All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

Job 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses (KJV “treasures”) are not part of the cycle

These are nothing more than poetic metaphors.

Contradiction claim #28, Snails do not melt.

Psa. 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

This is no different than when we say a snail “melts” when we pour salt on it.  It doesn’t melt really, but it appears to do so.  It is a figure of speech.

Contradiction claim #29, Do the righteous live or perish?

Psa.92:12:  The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree.

Isa. 57:1: The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart.

Let’s look at these passages in context. Ps. 92:12 is discussing the general blessings of the righteous man on earth. Isa. 57 is in the context of things happening to the wicked and righteous. Verse 1 continues, “and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.”  The point is that no one is concerned about righteous men dying or when merciful men are taken away.  The passage continues in vs. 2 where God says that “He [the righteous] shall enter into peace: they shall rest in their beds, each one walking in his uprightness.”  God says that the reason the righteous men are dying in this particular situation is that He is saving them from the coming evil, and that in death with Him they have their peace and rest.  There is no contradiction.

Contradiction claim #30, Is God good to all, or just a few?

Psa. 145:9  The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

Jer. 13:14  And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Psalm 145:9 is in the context of God’s overall character and of giving grace to all His creation.  He is indeed good to all who deserve nothing but His wrath.  Jer. 13:14 is a totally different context.  Here God is bringing punishment to Israel for their apostasy, idolatry, etc.  If a parent punishes his child, does that mean the parent no longer does good?  Isn’t punishment overall good?  God punishing evil is certainly good.

Contradiction claim #31, Do you answer a fool?

Prov. 26:4  Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Prov. 26:5  Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

This one is a bit confusing, but when understanding the whole of the teaching in Proverbs, it becomes clear.  The first passage is telling us not to answer a fool in the same way he speaks or we will be like him.  For example, when someone calls us a name, we don’t retort with, “and you’re another.”  In the second passage it tells us to answer a fool as his foolishness requires.  In other words, we rebuke and correct his foolishness.

Biblical Love and Sin

Biblical love does not mean that I ignore things that people do that are wrong and injurious.  This is true both in the physical and spiritual realms.  For example, to love a murderer, in a biblical sense, does not mean that we ignore his crime.  It means that we put him to death for his horrible trespass against the image of God (Genesis 9:5-6).  Likewise, to love a false teacher does not mean that I turn a blind eye to his error and strive to have unity with him regardless of his doctrine.  It means that I obey the Bible and mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17), that I expose his error publicly to protect those who might be led astray by his teaching.

David W.  Cloud, Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight, pg.168

Bible “Contradictions” Rebutted, #3

Contradiction claim #13, who killed Saul?

1 Sam. 31:4-6  Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.  So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
2 Sam. 1:14-15  And David said unto him, “How was thou not afraid to stretch forth thine hand to destroy the LORD’s anointed? And David called one of the young men, and said, “Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.” This being punishment for the Amalekite who killed Saul.

To keep this dissertation as easy as possible, I will again refer to “When Critics Ask”:  

Some claim that both stories are true, taking the Amalekite’s story as supplementary. They claim that Saul attempted suicide, but was not dead when the Amalekite arrived and finished the job. They point to the fact that the Amalekite had Saul’s sword and bracelet as evidence that his account was true, as well as the fact that David punished him by death for killing the king. The objections to this view are that it contradicts the statements of 1 Samuel 31, that “Saul took a sword and fell on it” and that his armorbearer “saw that Saul was dead” (vv. 4–5), as well as the inspired record that says “so Saul … died” (v. 6).

Others see the 1 Samuel story as the correct version and the one in 2 Samuel 1 as a true record of the fabrication of the Amalekite who came upon Saul after he died and thought he could gain favor with David by taking credit for the feat. They point to the fact that the story contradicts the record in 1 Samuel 31, that the Amalekite did not seem to know that Saul died by a sword, not a spear, and that 1 Chronicles 10 repeats the story as recorded in 1 Samuel, but not the fabrication of the Amalekite. The main objections to this view are that 2 Samuel does not say his story is a lie, and that David killed him for his act. In response, he may have been killed on the basis of his self-confession (2 Sam. 1:16). And the fact that his story was in contradiction to that in 1 Samuel may have been taken as sufficient evidence that his story was a fabrication.

Contradiction claim #14, How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

2 Sam. 6:23  Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

2 Sam. 21:8  But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

It appears that the second passage is a scribal error.  Some Septuagint and two Hebrew manuscripts have the name Merab instead of Michal.  Michal was not married to Adiel but Paltiel (1 Sam. 25:44).  1 Sam. 18:19 says that Merab was married to Adriel.  It is possible also that Michal was the one who brought them up and in that way they are called her sons.

Contradiction claim #15, Who moved David to anger?

2 Sam. 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

I Chron. 21:1  And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Again, I will cite “When Critics Ask”:

Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satan’s design to destroy David and the people of God, it was God’s purpose to humble David and the people and teach them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are involved in the crucifixion. Satan’s purpose was to destroy the Son of God (John 13:2; 1 Cor 2:8). God’s purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (Acts 2:14–39).

Contradiction claim #16, How many years of famine?

2 Sam. 24:13:  So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I Chron. 21:11: So God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

I’ll let Geisler and Howe answer this from their book, “When Critics Ask”:  

There are two possible ways to reconcile these accounts. Some commentators propose that the prophet Gad actually confronted David on two occasions. This proposal is based on the difference in language used to present the alternatives to David. In the 2 Samuel passage, Gad presents the alternatives as a question, “Shall seven years of famine come to you in your land” (v. 13). In the 1 Chronicles passage the alternatives are presented more along the lines of a command, “Choose for yourself, either three years of famine, or three months to be defeated” (vv. 11–12). Those who offer this solution assume that perhaps the 2 Samuel passage records the first encounter of Gad and David in which the alternatives are presented for David’s consideration, and that after some fasting and prayer, Gad returned for David’s decision by which time God had reduced the duration of the famine from seven to three years in response to David’s supplication.

Another group of commentators suggests that the record in 2 Samuel is a copyist error. They point out that there are more reliable manuscripts which preserve the number “three” for the duration of the famine and that the NIV has employed this manuscript reading in its translation.

Contradiction claim #17, how many stalls and horsemen?

1 Kings 4:26  And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2 Chron. 9:25  And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

This is from the book, “When Critics Ask,” by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe:  

This is undoubtedly a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2 Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The consonants for the number 40 are rbym,í while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four thousand.

Contradiction claim #18, Solomon's overseers—how many?

1 Kings 9:23:  550

2 Chron. 8:10:  250

According to John McArthur in his study Bible, the numbers are correct.  Here is his explanation at 2 Chronicles 2:2:  These numbers [in the text of 2:2] are repeated in 2:17, 18.  First Kings 5:16 records 3,300 overseers, compared to 3,600 in 2:18.  If, however, the additional supervisors (250 in 2 Chr. 8:10, but 550 in 1 Kin.9:23) are added, then both 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles agree that a total of 3,850 men worked.

Contradiction claim #19, When did Baasha die?

1 Kings 16:6-8:  26th year of the reign of Asa.

2 Chron. 16:1:  36th year of the reign of Asa.

Commentators accept this as a copyist’s error.  The difference in the Hebrew is a matter of small strokes that could easily have been misread or smudged.

Contradiction claim #20, How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2 Kings 8:26:  22 years old

2 Chron. 22:2:  42 years old

Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe, in their book “When Critics Ask,” say, 

“This is clearly a copyist error, and there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign in Judah.  In 2 Kings 8:17, we find that Joram, father of Ahaziah and son of Ahab, was 32 years old when he became king.  Joram died at age 40, eight years after becoming king.  Consequently, his son Ahaziah could not have been 42 when he took the throne of after his father’s death, otherwise he would have been older than his father.”

Contradiction claim #21, How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? 

2 Kings 24:8  Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chron. 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

This is a simple scribal error.  The age has to be 18 because he “did that which was evil” and the Chaldeans imprisoned him in 597, which means they considered him a responsible adult.  This scribal error gives an apparent contradiction, but there is nothing harmed by this error in either history or doctrine.

Bible “Contradictions” Rebutted, #2

Contradiction claim #8, rabbits do not chew their cud

Lev. 11:6  And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated “chew the cud” in the KJV is more exactly “bring up the cud”. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

This one needs a more involved response, so I will let the book “When Critics Ask,” by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, give the answer here:   

Although they did not chew the cud in the modern technical sense, they did engage in a chewing action that looked the same to an observer. Thus, they are listed with other animals that chew the cud so that the common person could make the distinction from his or her everyday observations.

Animals which chew the cud are identified as ruminants; they regurgitate food into their mouths to be chewed again. Ruminants normally have four stomachs. Neither the rock hyrax (translated “rock badger” in the NASB) nor the rabbit are ruminants and technically do not chew the cud. However, both animals move their jaws in such a manner as to appear to be chewing the cud. This action was so convincing that the great Swedish scientist Linnaeus originally classified them as ruminants. 

It is now known that rabbits practice what is called “reflection,” in which indigestible vegetable matter absorbs certain bacteria and is passed as droppings and then eaten again. This process enables the rabbit to better digest it. This process is very similar to rumination, and it gives the impression of chewing the cud. So, the Hebrew phrase “chewing the cud” should not be taken in the modern technical sense, but in the ancient sense of a chewing motion that includes both rumination and reflection in the modern sense. 

The list of clean and unclean animals was intended as a practical guide for the Israelite in selecting food. The average Israelite would not have been aware of the technical aspects of cud chewing, and may have otherwise considered the hyrax and rabbit as clean animals because of the appearance of cud chewing. Consequently, it was necessary to point out that, although it may appear that these were clean animals because of their chewing movement, they were not clean because they did not divide the hoof. We often follow a similar practice when talking to those who are not familiar with more technical aspects of some point. For example, we use observational language to talk about the sun rising and setting when we talk to little children. To a small child the daily cycle of the sun has the appearance of rising and setting. The description is not technically correct, but it is functionally useful for the level of understanding of the child. This is analogous to the use here in Leviticus. Technically, although the hyrax and the rabbit do not chew the cud, this description was functional at the time in order to make the point that these animals were considered unclean.

Contradiction claim #9, The bat is not a bird

Lev. 11:13-19  And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,  And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Deut. 14:11-18  Of all clean birds ye shall eat.  But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, And every raven after his kind, And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,  And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,  And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Leviticus begins by identifying what “fowl” they are not to eat, while in Deuteronomy it says “birds.”  In NIV both are translated as “birds.”  Studying the Hebrew words used I learned that they have a more diverse - more broader - meaning than “birds” or “fowl,” and should be more appropriately translated “flying things.”  So why don’t they translate it that way?  Tradition?  Commentators also say that the modern identity of some of these creatures is “uncertain.”  So why “bat”?  Some scholars say that this Hebrew word could also include flying insects.

Contradiction claim #10, Insects do NOT have four feet

Lev. 11:21-23  Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;  Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.  But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Actually, this is a matter of semantics, and how one views these insects. These particular creatures have four legs they normally walk on, and two forward legs normally used independently.  Notice in v.21 he does say “which have legs above their feet.”  All one has to do is look at a grasshopper or locust, and even a praying mantis, to understand that they have “four feet” and “goeth upon all four.”

Contradiction claim #11, Moses’ personality

Num.12:3: Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth.

Num. 31:14, 17, 18: And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves.”

The word “meek” in the KJV means “humble”.  Moses was a very humble person, but that doesn’t mean he cannot be angry and order Israel to follow God’s commands for killing the pagans.  Humble does not mean weak or spineless.

Contradiction claim #12, The sins of the father

Deut. 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Isa. 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

The Deuteronomy passage is part of the laws given to Israel, how THEY are to conduct human affairs. The point of that passage is that no one is to be punished for someone else’s sin; if a father does some evil, don’t punish his children, and if a child does something evil (adult child), then don’t punish his parents.

The Isaiah passage is discussing the destruction of Babylon. The “fathers” for generations have been idolatrous and practicing heinous rituals, etc.  Because of that, the nation as a whole will be destroyed to never rise again.  This will be done by God’s direction.  There is nothing contradictory about these passages in context.

Where’s the Meat?

If we teach our children only by choruses and do not give equal weight to the strong, meaty hymns of the Faith, we may be spiritually damaging their generation.  To intimidate these hymns of the Faith by saying “they are too deep and way over the heads of our young people” is to say we have a better way of producing a Christian than our forefathers had.  Children of earlier days had their spiritual teeth cut on those hymns, and such music became the bedrock for building mature, godly lives.  . . .we never want chorus singing to take the place of hymn singing, for the child will unconsciously think the hymns are more for the adults.  This may be a growing problem with the concept of “Children’s Church” on Sunday morning: it splits up the family in worship before God, and tends to imply to the child that they are too young for the worship in the sanctuary.

Dr. H.T. Spence, Confronting Contemporary Christian Music, pg.144.  Cited by David W. Cloud, Contemporary Christian Music Under the Spotlight, pg.35

Bible “Contradictions” Rebutted, #1

Over the years I have been questioned about many, many supposed contradictions in the Bible.  In fact, one can go on the Internet and find many sites publishing these “contradictions” as “proof” that the Bible is unreliable, invented by man, etc.  A while back a college student, whose family attended our church, sent me a very long list of these “contradictions” because they were causing him to doubt his faith and he wanted answers.  

This week I found this list and my responses, and thought it would be a good idea to make a series of posts so as to give my readers a resource for use if they encounter these issues.  So let’s begin; my responses will be in italic font.

Contradiction claim #1, the order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

To begin with, the writer of this claim has land animals created on day 5 when the Bible says they were created on day 6.  Same with the “creepy-crawlers”.   The sun did not need to be created yet for God to give time - God created time.  The light was God, as the Bible so very often says.  “Elohim” does not have to mean “gods”, rather it means a plurality of God, that is, the Trinity - three persons in one God.  That’s why when in v. 26 it uses the plural of “us” and “our,” yet in v.27 it has singular “his” and “he”.  It’s a plurality of persons, not gods.

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

Genesis 2 is a close-up account of day 6, not something different.  The chapter breaks were put there in the 13^th century, which made an arbitrary break between chapters 1 and 2.  Chapter 2 should start at vs.4 when it begins to sum up the events that just transpired.  Then it tells us that the plants hadn’t begun to grow yet because man wasn’t there to till them yet (not that they weren’t created, just that they weren’t growing).  Then we learn that it was a mist that watered the earth vs. rain.  V. 8 says God planted a garden in Eden, but it really doesn’t say if the garden was planted before or after Adam’s creation, just that Adam was taken to it after it was created.  Verses 9-15 do NOT say all this was done after Adam was created; it just says a summation of things that God did - a recap.  Verse 19 does not say these animals were created after Adam, rather it just says how they were created.  

Contradiction claim #2, orderliness of creation

How orderly were things created?
Chapter 1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no sun or moon or stars on the first three "days."
Chapter 2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (Funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

As for Chapter 1, why is there a problem with no astronomical bodies for the first 3 days?  Since when is God restricted to how He creates?  As for Chapter #2, this is certainly reading things into the text.  God did not “fix” anything.  He intended to create male and female from the beginning, the reason being that it was not good for man to be alone.  The animals were brought to Adam in pairs to show Adam that he needed another person to be complete, and none of the animals were the same as him so a distinct person had to be created to compliment him.  The passage does not say Adam was lonely - it said he was alone.  There is a lot of difference between those words.  

Contradiction claim #3, God’s satisfaction with creation

Chapter 1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
Chapter 2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple.

Chapter 2 claim is again taking things out of context.  God did not “fix up” anything; he completed it.  Genesis 2 is the recap of day six detailed.  Everything was good on day 7; it wasn’t until an unspecified time later that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden tree.

Contradiction claim #3, Did fowls come from water or ground?

Genesis 1:20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

This is a problem with KJV lacking clarity in modern understanding, but all 1:20 is saying is that the waters will bring forth water creatures at the same time birds are being created (this word for fowl means “flying ones,” and may include flying insects and bats).  The NET Bible translates 1:20 as “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”  NIV translates it as “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”  Both these translations are dynamic, giving thought-for -thought translation.  NAS is a formal, word-for-word, translation and says, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”  ESV is similar.  Jay Green’s literal translation puts it this way (italicized words added for clarity): “Let the waters swarm with the swarmers having a soul of life; and let the birds fly over the earth, on the face of the expanse of the heavens.”    And if you read the English over the Hebrew in the interlinear it says, “Let swarm the waters with swarmers having a soul living; and birds let fly around over the earth, on the face of the expanse of the heavens.”  So Gen. 1:20-21 are not saying the birds came out of the waters, rather it is saying they were created at the same time as were the creatures of the waters.

Contradiction claim 4#, which was first — beasts or man?

Gen. 1:25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen. 1:26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen. 2:18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen. 2:19  And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 2 is a recap of day 6 and the creation of man.  It doesn’t say the animals were created after Adam, it merely gives the fact that God had created the animals out of the ground, then He brought them before Adam.  The animals were already created; the author is just recapping how they were created, then the author points out that they were brought before Adam after Adam was created.

Contradiction claim #5, snakes do not eat dirt

Gen. 3:14  And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

This is a figurative way of saying that the snake will be living in the dirt and traveling in the dirt.  All the snake will know is dirt and dust.  It’s the same as when we say to someone, “eat my dust,”  as we accelerate our vehicles ahead of them - we don’t literally eat the dust.

Contradiction claim #6, the number of beasts in the ark

Gen. 7:2  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

Gen. 7:8,9  Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

Gen. 7:2 says that unclean beasts are only one pair each, while clean beasts shall be 7 pairs (by sevens, male and female).  7:8-9 merely says they went by pairs.  Where’s the problem?

Contradiction claim #7, Odd genetic engineering

Gen. 30:39  And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Actually, there is nothing odd about the actual genetic engineering, rather it is the manner in which it was done.  First, remember that much of the O.T. is just reporting history, not necessarily reporting God’s approval of what takes place (e.g. David’s adultery and murder) or whether superstitions were correct.  For whatever reason, Jacob believed that striping the rods would cause the animal characteristics.  He placed them where the animals would mate so as to develop a herd.  Now the passage doesn’t say that they brought forth ONLY the ringstraked, speckled and spotted animals, rather that they did have some of these.  What he did then was separate these animals from the rest.  He did nothing more than breed for the markings.  

Infant Baptism?

Baptize means to submerge, dip, or immerse, which is why sprinkling isn't really baptism.  As for ritual washings, there are indeed many religions which do this, but for different reasons.

For the Jews the ritual washings go back to Leviticus 1:4, 24 when the priest bathed before doing his temple duties.  In the century or so before Christ, Jews began a heavy emphasis on ritual washings to cleanse from impurity.  Somewhere along the line they began the ritual bathing — baptizing — of Gentile converts (although I guess circumcision was still done).  John the baptist did the ritual for people who repented of their sins — had a change of heart about their lives and wanted to be devoted to following God.  Baptism was a sign of identity with the group holding to the particular belief.  So when Jesus said to be baptized, it was for the same reason as John's baptism, except the baptized person's identity was now with Christ. (1 Cor. 6:11)

The Bible tells us our baptism is symbolic of our death, burial, and resurrection in Christ, which is why immersion is important.  Without the actual immersion the symbolism is lost.  Acts 8:38-39 says they went down into and came up out of the water, which demonstrates the method used.  See also Rom. 6:3-11, Col. 2:11-12.  

The Didache (written before 100 AD) said that baptism should be in running water (river, stream, e.g.), and if not available, then in other water (pond, e.g.).  Preferably cold water if available.  If running or standing water for immersing isn't available, then and only then would you pour water on the head three times. 

So when did it turn to sprinkling? The writings of Justin Martyr (c.100-165) tell of immersion. The Didache says that there should be no question of baptizing children because baptism is only for "convinced and determined" believers.  Tertullian (C.150-212 AD), also described baptism as by immersion.  It appears, from the various references in my library, that immersion didn't get supplanted until towards the end of the 2nd century when the papacy began coming into power. By 250 AD (my best guess from the ambiguity of some of the dates) the idea of infant baptism came about as a sacrament rather than as a symbol. Infant baptism was when they started using "Christian" names, while previously you kept your old "pagan" name and just called yourself a Christian. 

So apparently changing to sprinkling wasn't for Roman political reasons — it was for Roman papacy reasons. It appears that immersion continued as late as at least 300 AD while being supplanted by infant baptism.  (Of course there were those sects who always fought infant baptism and the papacy in general, and were persecuted and virtually wiped out for defying the Pope.)